I've yet to see a serious review of John Milius' magnum opus, Red Dawn. For the most part, the liberal critics dismiss any discussion of its technical and dramatic strengths and instead focus entirely on the message. The thrust of complaints against Milius and Red Dawn amount to probably some of the most disingenuous criticisms in cinematic history. They critics argue that the audience should reject whatever Milius was trying to say (he's a conservative and board member of the NA) because the scenario is NOT REALISTIC and just a propaganda vehicle. I've always wondered how liberals, who draw the line at "it's bad" when it comes to understanding war, have the gall to judge the credulity of any piece in the genre.
My main objection with the Left's attack on "Red Dawn" is their refusal to acknowledge that Milius' focus on the Wolverines represents only a snapshot of a far larger, broader story the remains ever present in the background. When critics complain about how incredulous it is for the Soviets and their Latin allies to attack a small town in Colorado, they purposely misunderstand the message Milius explicitly delivered through the Wolverine's conversation with Col. Tanner--these kids are only a small set of actors in a much larger war.
It doesn't take that much of a mental exercise necessary to justify the period's well thought out belief that the Soviets could exploit their adventures in Latin America to invade the United States. Between Vietnam and the "nuclear freeze" movement, right before the Reagan build up, the West was essentially in retreat throughout the entire globe. Whether or not the Soviets could've succeeded in this gamble is another debate, but "Red Dawn" is a story of extraordinary times and circumstances albeit with careful attention to the real world.
Even so, the focus on the realism of Red Dawn's background story is an attempt to get away from the really other stunning aspects of the film. You may disagree with the conservative themes in this film, but one thing John Milius does very well is let his views flow naturally from the experiences of his characters and the realities of war. There is no Rush Limbaugh avatar reaching into the film to preach through Patrick Swayze or Harry Dean Stanton, something Aaron Sorkin can't help but injecting into the endless banter that has become staple to the "The West Wing."
The most clever critics realize that thematically Red Dawn is a success, so they go after the acting -- after all, that's where half of Milius' conservative propaganda is coming from. Yet more often than not they dismiss this important part of the film's success without a single attempt to specify their objections. You might ask what people should expect in the way of expressions and dialogue from high school kids who've been conditioned into guerillas , and I can't say that the kids in the "Lord of the Flies" featured the timely emoting that we see from say Swayze's character when they first arrive in the mountains. The terse, yet clearly emotional and meaningful chatter between the Wolverines is strikingly credible, and surpassed only by Harry Dean Stanton's powerful performance as a Midwestern blue collar thrown into a detention center and Ron O'Neal's slow yet well paced descent into disillusionment with his tiny slice of the war.
There's wide agreement that the cinematics were decent given the budget involved and the technology of the time. The art direction apparantly was so successful that two CIA case officers were alarmed by the attention to detail given to the T-72 main battle tank mock ups. Over all, Red Dawn maybe one of the most original, well done pieces from the 1980s.
